While most communist parties had welcomed the Report
as one to 'illumine the path', Comrade Ghosh in the spirit of fraternal
criticism highlighted some serious defects of the Report and cautioned that
certain observations of Khrushchev would generate the trend of
reformism-revisionism in the communist movement of different
countries.

The 20th Congress of the CPSU has created a great commotion not only in the bourgeois
world but even amongst ourselves, the communists. But whatever might have been
the commotion, the scientific approach and due importance with which the Report
should have been analysed were found missing. By this we mean that in no quarter
discussion was made in a dispassionate way. None of those who have either
supported or opposed it have done so in a dispassionate way. It is impossible to
know the truth without being free from blind emotion or bias. The matter should
be analysed calmly and in a dispassionate way on the basis of Marxism-Leninism
and concrete facts. Not to speak of the Communist Party of India, not a single
communist party of the world has so far approached the problem with this
angularity and outlook — we do not know whether anybody will do so in future.
The Central Committee of our party, after a careful analysis and thorough
consideration of the Report of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, has come to
certain conclusions. Here I shall confine my discussion exclusively to the
Report of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and shall not enter into the
observations made by different communist parties on it. Even while discussing
our observations, comrades should remain dispassionate.

First of all, let us see what were the topics of discussion in the 20th
Congress of the CPSU. These were :

(1) Whether the policy of peaceful co-existence is consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

(2) Whether the law of inevitability of war is still valid or not.

(3) Different forms of transition to socialism — the possibility of peaceful
transformation of society from capitalism to socialism.

(4) Present situation in the capitalist world.

(5) Certain questions raised by Mikoyan and others on
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR by Stalin.

(6) Cult of individual.

Besides, some other points relating to the Soviet economy were also discussed which we do not
consider here necessary to deal with.

Before entering into the main subject, I would like to discuss a few points. From the very
inception of our party, we have been repeatedly stressing that authoritarianism
is incompatible with Marxism. We have, all along, made severe criticism of
authoritarianism. It is true that Marxism does not negate the conception of
authority but the particular sense of authority that breeds authoritarianism has
nothing to do with Marxism, rather it is completely alien to Marxism. Long back,
we warned against the mechanical process of thinking and mechanical process of
organization prevailing in the international communist movement. But we never
concluded that this leadership had ceased to be Marxist. Serious lapses here and
there notwithstanding, there was no deviation of fundamental nature. This is
equally valid today.[l] What harm is caused
if mechanization develops in the thought process ? What is particularly wrong
with mechanization of thought ? Blind and mechanical support may cause even a
great leader to commit mistakes. To follow a leader mechanically means that the
party is right when the leader is right; but it commits mistakes when the leader
commits mistakes. It has already been discussed [2]
and shown that development of any phenomenon can only be possible through struggle or
interaction of ideas. So, if there is no real struggle or interaction between
the thinking and ideas of the leader and those of the rank and file members then
there can be no actual development of thinking of either the leader or the rank
and file. Absence of this struggle and interaction of thoughts gives birth to
bureaucracy. Even if not intended, mechanization of thought is bound to develop
in practice if such struggle is avoided inside the party. Mechanical centralism
will inevitably lead to the formation of bureaucracy at the top — as we know
that the law of mechanics leads to the concept of Prime Mover.

In case of a party, too, comprehensive knowledge cannot be acquired by it if it is guided by
formal logic. Mechanical and formal way of analysing things can, at best, lead
one to partial truth. A party serious about making correct analysis and
objective appraisal of any situation must give up the easy, simplified and
one-sided method of analysis based on formal logic and cannot but adopt in its
place the dialectical methodology. If the party follows, though not professedly
but objectively, the process of mechanical centralism both in the organizational
and ideological spheres of movement, then the ideological centralism is sure to
give birth to authoritarianism, on the one hand, while, on the other,
organizational centralism will lead to the formation of a bureaucratic
leadership at the top. In the first case, the danger of fanatic bent of mind and
blind allegiance to leader or leadership is sure to develop. In such a
situation, the object of all discussions inside the party, that is, inner-party
discussion, is virtually reduced to accepting whatever comes from the leader as
truth without any question and to avoiding the struggle to get at
truth.

As a result, the actual development of the thinking faculty inside the party is seriously
impeded. When we speak of democratic centralism we mean both the organizational
and the ideological centralism and certainly do not mean observance of certain
democratic norms only in the internal organizational affairs of the party. For
long, we have been pointing out that although the ideological and the
organizational activities of the international communist leadership are
basically consistent with Marxism-Leninism, they are not free from serious
defects and shortcomings. The symptoms of mechanization were discernible for a
long time in the process of thinking and in the process of organization of the
international communist movement. Our old literature would bear it out. Long
before, we sounded the caution that unless the world communist movement and
organization could be freed from mechanization then the Tito incident might not
be the last one. History has testified that our apprehension was not unfounded.
But it would be wrong if we highlight only the shortcomings of the
international communist movement. This is not its sole feature. On the whole, it
is true that they have provided correct leadership to the international
communist movement despite these shortcomings. Some communist friends in our
country then doubted whether we were at all communists as we dared to point out
these errors and shortcomings of the international communist leadership. It goes
without saying that raising such doubts had no real bearing. For, we cannot
forget for a moment that just as we should give due weight to the experiences of
the international leadership so also we can ill-afford to undermine our own.
Progress is absolutely impossible if the relation between the leaders and rank
and file is not reciprocal. It is not sufficient only to have the right to judge
the leadership but what is more important is to apply it in practice. For a
Marxist party it is vitally important to guard against possible mistakes and to
keep itself on the right track. Here too, it must be clear that while judging or
criticizing the acts of leadership we must be free from blind emotion and be
dispassionate. We must be free from the influence of all variants of bourgeois
philosophy, more particularly from vulgar individualism when we judge the
leadership. Not only the rank and file members should remain conscious and
vigilant as to whether the dialectical relationship between the leadership and
the rank and file is prevailing inside the party, but the leadership, in turn,
has also the bounden duty to keep this relationship living within the party for
its own continuous development and progress. Thus, the sense of responsibility
and the nature of relationship between the leadership and the rank and file are
reciprocal. But very often it is found that this teaching of Marxism is
forgotten. It is our queer experience that some workers of the Communist Party
of India often argue like this : "Oh, you are criticizing the Cominform ? So,
you don't abide by it ? Then how can you remain any more a communist ?" Such
logic has nothing to do with dialectics and is a typical product of formal
logic. Such an attitude finds no difficulty in making a leader a demigod this
moment and in the next moment in easily denigrating him. Both these acts, though
contradictory to each other, are the products of the same formalistic approach.
This defect of formalism in the international communist movement was pointed out
by us long ago, particularly regarding the role of leadership of the party and
the correct approach to be adopted about it. Our comrades know very well that
long back we pointed out the mistaken analysis by the CPSU on the questions of
Germany and China. But at that time, no other party within the international
communist camp came to point out these mistakes — at least we are not aware of
it. Judged in this context, the Central Committee of our party was not taken
aback at the decision of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.

So, when the slogan against the cult of individual has been raised at the 20th Congress, we
have particular reasons to be glad and we hail this move. But while welcoming
this move, we are constrained to say at the same time that we are unable to
appreciate the very method that has been adopted to eradicate the phenomenon of
the cult of individual. In the name of fighting out the cult of individual, we
are afraid, they are in reality directing their fight against an individual and
not the cult itself. Otherwise, when so much emphasis has been laid on the fight
against the cult of individual, how is it that nothing has been said about the
root cause of development of the cult of individual in the Report itself ? In
the Report, Comrade Stalin is said to have become proud, ambitious,
self-complacent, egoistic, etc., in the later part of his life. But the most
pertinent question as to how these defects and shortcomings could develop in a
leader of Comrade Stalin's stature, and what were the factors and who were
mainly responsible for all these, were not at all discussed. We must bear in
mind that it is wrong to think that it is the individual who alone can indulge
in personality cult. The activities of a body, or a committee even, can give
birth to this phenomenon of the cult of individual if instead of removing the
blind and mechanical allegiance of the workers and the people to it, these are
indulged in and encouraged by this committee or body. So, we must remember that
by fighting simply an individual we cannot fight out the cult of
individual.

If a group of
people work together, that does not automatically mean that collective
leadership has been established. Collective leadership can be said to have been
established only when there is dialectical method, that is, interaction of ideas
and struggles in the process of thinking of the party. It has been alleged that
collective leadership ceased to operate in the later part of Stalin's life, but
in our opinion this only reflects the operational aspect of the
thing.

Karl Marx wrote
Capital. It was in a sense the product of the thinking of an individual.
Does it follow then that Capital was the product of Marx's thinking in a
subjective way ? Or did it not reflect personification of social consciousness
through an individual which in reality means collective leadership ? This is
why, just as the thinking of a committee composed of several individuals can be
under the impact of and may actually reflect individual trend of thinking, so
also the collective knowledge of the members and workers of the party can get
the best expression through an individual. Social thinking in the form of
collective knowledge of all the members of the party, when personified through
an individual, is also collective leadership. What should be looked for is
whether struggle or interaction of ideas operates inside the party. The question
may be pertinently raised that if collective thinking can be personified through
an individual then what at all is the necessity of collective leadership ? Well,
otherwise, there is no guarantee of any guard against mistakes. And in order to
guarantee that, collective functioning both in organizational and ideological
activity is not only necessary but also imperative. An individual, whatever may
be his stature as a revolutionary, may also commit mistakes. Naturally, if the
practice of collective functioning is absent then the whole party, following the
mistakes of the leader, may one day even go to the extent of committing a
fundamental deviation. So, the question of developing collective functioning and
collective leadership within a revolutionary party of the proletariat is so very
vital.

What do we
understand by collective leadership of the party ? Collective knowledge of all
the members is the collective leadership of the party. And development of this
collective knowledge is mainly determined by the level of consciousness of the
members and workers of the party. So, collective knowledge can grow and develop
only when on the basis of this higher level of consciousness, there is conflict
or interaction of ideas between the leaders and the workers in a party. So,
democratic centralism does not come into being merely through adoption of a
model democratic constitution. The real foundation of democratic centralism is
the high ideological-cultural standard of the comrades. Because, otherwise, what
is sure to develop is blind allegiance either to an individual or likewise to a
committee. So, just as blindly following a particular leader is the other name
of the cult of individual, so also blindly following the Central Committee, or
the mental makeup of blind allegiance to it, is nothing but another form of
expression of the same cult of individual. Taking into account all these points,
we are of the firm opinion that these important aspects of the problem ought to
have been discussed in the 20th Congress, which was not done. So, declarations
and pious wishes to fight the cult of individual notwithstanding, there seems to
have been no break in the old tradition of mechanical process of thinking. The
manner in which almost all the communist parties are accepting the decisions of
the 20th Congress unquestioningly proves our above apprehension as
correct.

The present
leaders of the CPSU are saying that up to 1934 Comrade Stalin did not show any
deviation. From their own observations it is coming out that after the death of
Lenin Comrade Stalin conducted relentless ideological battles against all kinds
of deviations in the communist movement. Naturally, it follows from their own
observations that the method and style of work of Comrade Stalin, about which so
many questions have been raised today, were absent in the party-life at least
before 1934. Now the question arises : How and following which process could
these deviations appear in the last phase of Comrade Stalin's life ? Unless we
can detect the root cause that worked behind these alleged deviations we cannot
avert the danger of its future recurrence. On the Tito incident, too, we sounded
this same caution. Khrushchev, in his Report, has said nothing about the root
cause that might work behind the growth and development of the cult of
individual nor has he said anything as to how it can be fought out. Judged from
this angle, their argument suffers from the defect of one-sidedness. Most
arguments of Comrade Khrushchev[3]
suffer from the very same defects. For
example, he has said : "It is wrong to praise Stalin for the victory in the
Second World War — it is the Red Army that really deserves it." Such an
argument is simply queer and preposterous ! Because, to give due recognition to
the leading role of Comrade Stalin does not negate, in any way, the role of the
Red Army. Without the role and contribution of the people, the question of the
leading role of the leader does not arise at all. Thus it is clear that
Khrushchev has deliberately attempted to undermine the role of Comrade Stalin.
To fail to recognize the particular historic role of an individual means to give
birth to ultra-democracy which in turn would give a burial to the concept of
concrete leadership inside the party.

It has to be
realized that objectively there is difference between individual and individual.
It is for this reason that we have observed earlier that their arguments suffer
from one-sidedness.

Likewise, when
they are up in arms against the cult of individual, another pertinent question
is sure to arise. Even if we assume that Stalin developed the cult of
individual, then Stalin cannot be absolved, no doubt, of his due share of
responsibility — but the present leaders are no less responsible for this. If
constant blind support is extended to a leader, then it is not unlikely that he
may fall a victim to the cult of individual. Today they are levelling so many
charges against Stalin. Some slips of Comrade Stalin did not escape our notice.
But to substantiate the charges they have now levelled against Comrade Stalin,
necessary documents should have been placed, which they have not done. As if all
these problems concern the CPSU alone and none else — this seems to be their
attitude. The CPSU is trying to monopolize the Stalin affair, although, in our
opinion, any question relating to Stalin is not merely an affair of the Soviet
Union but is a matter of concern to the toiling millions of the whole world. So,
in our considered view, it was highly improper on their part to come
unilaterally to a conclusion on such a vital issue like this, without showing
any regard for the opinions of the communists of the world. Had they been
serious about fighting the cult of individual, they ought to have observed this
code.

We should
remember one more point in this connection. Any and every act of a communist
should be guided by a sense of purposiveness. To act without any purpose is to
reflect a non-communist character. The question of rectifying or fighting an
individual does not arise at all when he is no more — only his thoughts are
there. So, it appears that in the name of fighting the cult of individual, they
are fighting a person who has departed. Otherwise, in our opinion, it would have
been better if they would have confined themselves more to their own role and
contribution towards the development of this cult of individual. It is our
considered view that if the root cause of development of the cult of individual
is not thoroughly laid bare, then the cult of individual which is nothing but
absolute authoritarianism may even be indulged in by the Central Committee of
the CPSU through its activities.

From this
criticism of ours, it should not be concluded that the present leadership has
already deviated from the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. This would
be wrong.[4[

Those comrades
are definitely in the wrong who, viewing the present lapses of the CPSU, are
asking whether the liquidation of the CPSU is warranted in the interest of
developing a genuine communist party there. Such a trend of thinking is
influenced by Trotskyism and is alien to Marxism-Leninism.

First, as we
have already shown, the present leadership has not yet made any fundamental
deviation from the Marxist-Leninist principles. Secondly, we cannot deny the
role of the Soviet people in protecting the CPSU from committing any fundamental
deviation. More so, when, unlike our country, where the role of the people is to
a great extent subjective, it is an objective reality there in the Soviet Union.
However, before coming to the main point, we would like to say that the object
of our criticism of the present leadership of the CPSU has no other purpose than
to help them rectify their lapses and thereby strengthen it.

While discussing
the Report of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, it would be wrong to concentrate
wholly on the defects or shortcomings of the Soviet leadership without giving
cognition to their contribution. It would be equally wrong to highlight their
contributions only, support anything or everything they say and not to point out
their lapses and shortcomings. Both these attitudes are equally bad. Since it is
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union so it can commit no mistakes — such an
approach suffers from blindness. From this angularity we believe that they would
at least give a calm and serious consideration to what we say here. Let
us now take up one by one the subjects discussed in the 20th Congress of
the CPSU.

On peaceful co-existence

The approach of
the CPSU leadership on the question of peaceful co-existence between the
capitalist and the socialist states, though not wholly precise, is in general
agreement with our explanation. We have explained it long ago that the policy of
peaceful co-existence is not merely a diplomatic manoeuvre but is the reflection
of recognition of the objective necessity and is consistent with the principles
of Marxism-Leninism. The 20th Congress, it seems, has tried to explain this more
or less in the same manner[5]

On the law of inevitability of war

On this issue,
the present leaders of the CPSU have just reiterated the analysis of Comrade
Stalin without however mentioning his name for once. We are to take note of
another aspect here. The whole issue has been formally divided into several
parts. In one, it has been shown that since imperialism still continues in force
and it is imperialism that generates war, so the "Law of inevitability of wars
between the capitalist countries" formulated by Lenin still holds good as
before. In another part, where it has been shown that war is not fatalistically
inevitable, one-sided emphasis has been laid so much on the significance of the
changed international situation, and particularly upon the increasing strength
of the world peace movement, that a wrong impression may gain ground that war
can be banished once for all despite the existence of imperialism as a world
system. This compartmentalized approach has already created some confusion. To
cite an example, the Communist Party of Rumania has already observed that there
is absolutely no possibility of war today. Judged from this viewpoint, Comrade
Stalin's approach to this issue was far more comprehensive and a dialectical
one.

On Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR

In the Report of the 20th Congress, Khrushchev, and
more particularly Mikoyan, have made certain criticisms of some of the theses
contained in the above book of Stalin. Quoting from Lenin, Khrushchev has shown
in his Report that the concept of complete stagnation or halt in production in
the capitalist system even when it is in the midst of severe economic crisis is
non-Marxian. Although Khrushchev did not spell out whose concept of "complete
stagnation" he was fighting against, from the trend of discussion it was quite
clear that he meant Stalin and none else.[6]

That this assumption of ours is not baseless is proved
by the report of Comrade Mikoyan [7]
While supporting
the Report of the 20th Congress, Mikoyan engaged himself in criticizing some of
the theses of Stalin, contained in the above mentioned booklet, which, in our
opinion, was quite unnecessary and irrelevant. Mikoyan, unlike Khrushchev,
criticized Comrade Stalin directly as if he had said that there would be
"complete stagnation or halt in the development of production" in capitalist
economies when capitalism is in the midst of severe crisis. Comrade Stalin
discussed about stagnation or halt in the technological development in
capitalist economies. But from this, in our opinion, it can by no means be
construed that he meant a complete stagnation or halt. We are at a loss to
understand how it was possible for leaders like Khrushchev and Mikoyan to
present such a distorted version of Comrade Stalin's proposition. Analysing the
post-War condition of world capitalist economy, with which Khrushchev is also in
agreement, Stalin pinpointed that the tendency towards stagnation in the
capitalist economies had become all the more evident. To impute to Stalin
something which he did not say is, in our consideration, a grave offence. What
is more, to prove the contention of Stalin to be wrong, Mikoyan picked up some
statistics from the reports of the Central Committee of the CPSU about the
increase in production in capitalist economies even in the midst of crisis.
Mikoyan thus challenged the correctness of Comrade Stalin's contention by
picking up only the last line of Stalin and linking that with the statistics of
increase in production. Mikoyan chose to quote the following :

"Since the volume of production in these countries
will diminish". Although the full sentence stands as follows :
"However, expansion of production in these countries
will proceed on a narrower basis, since the volume of production in these
countries will diminish."

Thus, it is clear that in view of ever-increasing
crisis of world capitalism and the changed international situation and as a
result of further contraction of world capitalist market, Stalin dealt with the
possibility of diminishing volume of production in the capitalist countries and
from this standpoint he made this exposition that "expansion of production on a
narrower basis" would take place in all these countries. In this last sentence
Stalin only indicated what was going to come in future and not what is actually
taking place today. Any effort to disprove Stalin's whole contention viewing the
little advance in capitalist production at present, betrays utter ignorance
about Marxism-Leninism. Mikoyan has again quoted from one of the writings of
Lenin during the spring of 1916 to prove the analysis and explanation given by
Stalin about a particular decision Lenin made in the same period, the spring of
1916, as wrong. Mikoyan probably preferred to forget that Stalin himself had
already shown that in today's changed context this particular thesis of Lenin
was no longer valid. So, Stalin's contention can be proved wrong not by what
Lenin said ; what is necessary to prove it wrong is to examine it in the
context of changed economic perspective of today. Another queer aspect cannot
escape the attention of any Marxist if he goes through the entire
proceedings seriously. Mikoyan was haunted so much with the spirit of
fighting Stalin that in his bid to show Stalin's error, he even contradicted the
main contention of Khrushchev. Let us explain. In the background of post-World
War economic situation marked by ever-deepening crisis of the capitalist
economy, Stalin concluded that his thesis on the "relative stability of the
capitalist market" as well as that of Lenin that "Capitalism is growing
far more rapidly than before" had lost their validity. Stalin came to this
conclusion in the perspective of the general crisis of world capitalism and the
growing instability of capitalist market.

So, what was
true in the period of relative stability of world capitalist market has lost its
validity in the changed context of acute instability in the world capitalist
system prevailing now. Khrushchev, too, has discussed in clear terms the acute
unstable condition in the world capitalist system today. And the above quoted
thesis of Lenin is intimately linked up with this question of instability of
crisis-ridden capitalist market. From that point of view Mikoyan has even
contradicted Khrushchev's contention. This is queer indeed ! All this presents
two probabilities — either they have entirely misunderstood Stalin or they have
deliberately distorted Stalin's contention.

On peaceful transition to socialism from capitalism

There can be no
two opinions about the necessity of replacing the capitalist states by socialist
state structures in all the capitalist countries as discussed by Khrushchev in
his Report. But how can this be achieved — peacefully or through armed uprisings
— that is the crux of the problem. At one time, Karl Marx expressed his opinion
that socialism could be achieved in some countries through peaceful means. The
objective conditions then were totally different. He pinned much faith on the
growing democratic atmosphere in the then capitalist countries. But conditions
changed with the change of time. This is why later on Comrade Lenin declared
unequivocally that without mass uprising, without smashing the bourgeois state
machine, socialist revolution could not be accomplished. It is still valid.
Discussion of any issue in isolation from concrete condition is incompatible
with Marxism. In those days, Lenin's concrete analysis of concrete condition did
a tremendous service in crystallizing the idea in the mass-mind about the
indispensable necessity of armed uprising of the people for the achievement of
socialism. Lenin, however, noted the possibility of peacefully achieving
socialism in the capitalist countries neighbouring the socialist
states.

While explaining
the possibility of peacefully accomplishing socialism, Khrushchev has said :
"If the capitalists do not obstruct and do not apply force, then the communists
will not take recourse to violence. But since it is certain that they will do
so, we should remain alert." No doubt, this approach is very useful in
combating the slander that the communists are blood-thirsty. Had he stopped
here, it would have been very good. But he has gone a step further by holding
that in the changed context of present-day international situation, revolution
can be peacefully accomplished in many of the capitalist and erstwhile colonial
countries. We could not agree with this observation. From Marxian standpoint,
this is not at all acceptable. No doubt, this observation of Khrushchev is sure
to generate the trend of reformism-revisionism in the communist movement of
different countries. Communists in each capitalist country may start
thinking that it is their particular country where revolution can be
accomplished peacefully. As a result, preparation for revolution will be
seriously hampered. This is one aspect. The other aspect too has not escaped our
attention. On this account, Khrushchev's own contention suffers from
self-contradiction. At one place he said that peaceful transition to socialism
was possible only in the highly developed capitalist countries where democracy
was traditional. Then again, in the next breath, he said that this was
applicable only to "weak capitalist countries". Then again, in another context
he asserted that in case of highly developed capitalist countries violent
revolution was inevitable. Self-contradiction is the essence of all these
observations ! In this regard, we consider the following observation of Comrade
Stalin as the best and most adequate : "The question of establishment of
socialism in a peaceful way can arise in that remote future when the present
capitalist encirclement will be replaced by a socialist one".

Some queer arguments

This
particularly applies to Mikoyan's observation only. Mikoyan, in his attempt to
defend Khrushchev's contention of the possibility of achieving socialism
peacefully through parliamentary means, has cited some examples of "peaceful
development of revolution". These illustrations are irrelevant, unreal and
untenable. For, when the subject matter of discussion was whether in capitalist
countries peaceful transition to socialism from capitalism was at all possible,
to cite, in that context, examples of countries like China, Czechoslovakia,
etc., in support of development of revolution through peaceful means, was
totally untenable. It is really surprising that in the Congress of the CPSU such
standard of discussion and way of illustration were possible !

Summing up the
whole discussion, I would say that their analyses of the policy of peaceful
co-existence, law of inevitability of war and conduct of world peace movement
from Marxian standpoint are in the main correct and so supportable
[8]. Judged from that
point of view, the present leadership has not made any fundamental deviation
from Marxism-Leninism. Yet we must say that some features in their analyses and
explanations suffer from serious defects. This, therefore, calls for a serious,
dispassionate and thorough examination of the whole matter. As we have said at
the very outset, we hope everybody will take this criticism of ours as a
comradely criticism. Once again we assure that the whole purpose of our
discussion has been to point out and remove the shortcomings and defects of the
present leadership and to strengthen it.

Notes

1. The leadership of the CPSU turned out and out revisionist later on.

2. This refers to the discussion on Marxism and dialectical materialism made
earlier in a school of politics.

4. This was the evaluation of our party in
1956 based on the experiences
available to the international communist movement about the character of the
CPSU. And it was the Central Committee of our party under the leadership of
Comrade Shibdas Ghosh which subsequently pointed out, for the first time, the
fact that the leadership of the CPSU had degenerated into a completely
revisionist one, being unable to rectify its mistakes and get rid of this
mechanical process of thinking and organization. But it would be wrong to
conclude that since the leadership had turned out and out revisionist, the party
had automatically degenerated into a non-working class party. Because the
fundamental character of a working class party is not destroyed automatically
and then and there with the usurpation of leadership by the revisionists.

5. Although we were generally in agreement
with their explanation at the
20th Congress of the CPSU that the policy of peaceful co-existence is not just a
diplomatic manoeuvre, subsequent events have proved beyond doubt that the
present leadership of CPSU has not only failed to grasp the revolutionary
significance of this policy but by their miserable failure to apply it
correctly, they have virtually reduced it to a policy of peaceful
capitulation.

6. This became all the more clear, later on,
when the revisionist leadership of the CPSU
headed by Khrushchev directed open attack against Comrade Stalin's formulations.
Comrade Shibdas Ghosh gave a thorough exposure to the erroneous ideas and
concepts of a group of Soviet economists who undertook a veritable campaign
against the economic formulations of Comrade Stalin. The said Soviet
economists wrote a treatise The Basic Economic Law, published in 1962,
Issue No. 1 of the Veprosy Ekonomiki to which Comrade Ghosh's reply came
under the title "A Few Economic Problems" originally published in
Socialist Unity Vol. 3, New Series, September, 1962 and republished in
Proletarian Era, Vol. 8, No. 20, August 1, '75 and Vol. 9, No. 1, August
15, '75.